– Re: Out of Towners?
In Reply To
"Jurisdiction" is a "property right" created by enactment of the NLRA and in the Union environment it is governed by the proviso to Section 8(a)(3); and, your Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) specifically lines out the property and the territory in which you can and cannot work.
The "Permit" you speak of, from days not too far past is a "LICENSE" to that "PROPERTY RIGHT",to wit, each & every Local Union Member has a claim, a stake.
The Local, through its members, executive boards and bylaws can make and issue rules governing if and when a PERMIT or LICENSE to work in your defined jurisdictional area is to be allowed, or not allowed. The Permit & License is akin to a temporary easement on said "property rights", for a "definitive time certain" (the duration of a specific project, it could be whatever the parties bargain for, 2 weeks, a month etc).
The UBC-NERCC, via another bogus case proffered by the International & Doug McCarron in UBC Local 43 & Lebovitz, in cahoots with the DOL/NLRB issued a decision for MOBILITY which is an end run around those property rights guaranteed under the NLRA. This decision & order is contrary to the Act and amounts to the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) & the UBC International & its subordinate Intermediary Council NERCC "legislating from the bench" to NEGATE or REMOVE said rights of Union Members to protect their "PROPERTY RIGHT" which run from the execution of one Contract (CBA) to another, and through subsequent extensions of the contract, during & through contract negotiations.
Neither the UBC or the DOL's ALJ or the NLRB Board in Washington DC can legislate these property rights away. Congress has not as of this date, amended the NLRA to allow this to occur. Moreover, they are the only ones who can do this.
And, as I have posted before, NEW YORK is not a Right to Work (RTW) state; thus, the power and right to exclude others, once the proviso to Section 8(a)(3) has been complied with remains intact.
NERCC counsel, claims that their Mobility Clause is an exclusion to the Default Rule in the CBA, and that is where their argument to the NLRB Board in Lebovitz is "fatally flawed", as the exclusion to the Default Rule for Mobility they are seeking can only be amended & changed by an Act of Congress to change the Union Security Clause in the NLRA, not the CBA.
Enactment of the NLRA is what conferred the "Property Right", NOT enactment/execution of the CBA.
The only thing remaining then, is what the individual LOCAL's wish to charge for the nonmember, for Outsiders or Travelers to PURCHASE a PERMIT for a specific duration of time as previosuly noted.
Pete - the chief component of "property" is "the right to exclude others", per the U.S. Supreme Court.